Question about evolution

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
Originally posted by GraftMeIn


I agree science isn't trying to disprove the Bible. The problem is that some people say God could not have created the world, or life. and therefore they think the bible is incorrect.

Yes, well, if they think they can harness science to prove that particular assertion, they're badly misunderstanding what science is.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Originally posted by GraftMeIn


So who wrote the first version? what were the manuscripts that it was translated from?

Do you really want an answer to this question? Could you answer the same question regarding "Genesis"?

What relevance does it have?


Back to von Ranke-Graves: (again, my translation, so the titles of the books may vary)
Sources: Pliny, History of Nature, IV,35 and VIII, 67 , Homer, Illias XX, 223

(There are more, referring to parts of the myth that I didn´t quote)


So what? Even the oldes sources for this do not claim to have been written by eyewitnesses - in fact, there is no way to get a date for creation from this myth.

But the same is true for Genesis.


I agree science isn't trying to disprove the Bible. The problem is that some people say God could not have created the world, or life. and therefore they think the bible is incorrect.

And because there are people who make wrong statements, you have to counter it with an equally wrong statement?
 
Upvote 0
but it's the same theory two things with no life equaling life

No it isn't. That's why it's a straw man.

Like I said the order things were created according to myths is meaningless if they aren't in an order that can support life.

How can that be a problem for an omnipotent being? Myths aren't meaningless. But they only tell us something about humans, never about science.

Plant life above ground needs light in order to grow. therefore it was needed before plants could grow on land.

It was clear that you were talking about all life.

As long as there was light no sun would be needed for plants to grow, I can grow a plant under artificial light without the sun, some plants need full shade to grow in, so they don't need sunlight they just need some form of light.

So you admit that an omnipotent being can create everything in basically any order it wants?

again I would need refrences to what other religions say the way things were created are, something written before the Bible, or in the same era.

Why in the same era? And did you study all other creation myths?

Shai-Hulud
 
Upvote 0

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Originally posted by Freodin


Do you really want an answer to this question? Could you answer the same question regarding "Genesis"?

What relevance does it have?

What relevance does it have? why should I believe something that was only written 50 years ago? that's what relevance it has.

Genesis has been translated by a group of experts in language, there are original texts it has been translated from, even the dead sea scroll translations back up much of what is written in the Bible.



Back to von Ranke-Graves: (again, my translation, so the titles of the books may vary)
Sources: Pliny, History of Nature, IV,35 and VIII, 67 , Homer, Illias XX, 223

(There are more, referring to parts of the myth that I didn´t quote)

This still doesn't tell me when it was written, Isn't there one book like the bible? are there any ancient scrolls or texts, in existence like the ones the bible has to back it up? And why should I trust one persons translation about what it says?


So what? Even the oldes sources for this do not claim to have been written by eyewitnesses - in fact, there is no way to get a date for creation from this myth.

But the same is true for Genesis.



What makes Genesis the same as the myths from other religions? I think there is a huge difference between one God that is eternal, and many Gods that were born.




And because there are people who make wrong statements, you have to counter it with an equally wrong statement?

What is it that makes my statement so wrong?

 
 
Upvote 0

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Originally posted by Shai-Hulud


No it isn't. That's why it's a straw man.


It's no different than you comparing the Bible to other religions.



How can that be a problem for an omnipotent being? Myths aren't meaningless. But they only tell us something about humans, never about science.

Because there is order in the way God does thing, He is not a God of chaos. When he does something it is for a reason, and there is always order in the way he does it.


It was clear that you were talking about all life.


Then why did you bother even asking me the question you did?


So you admit that an omnipotent being can create everything in basically any order it wants?

Did I say that? please point out where I said that God created things in some strange order that doesn't make any sense. God does things in order so that they will make sense. Like I said he not a God of chaos.


Why in the same era? And did you study all other creation myths?

Shai-Hulud

If I had studied every other creation myth would I be asking for information on what they say, or where they come from? :(

I'm sorry I didn't relize that you were an expert, and had read every creation story that exists, or that you read the entire Bible, and every book about science there is, and understand each one so completely. Therefore you must be much more knowledgable than I am about any of this. I guess I should accept everything you say without question since you know so much more than I do, about all of it.

the reason for asking for something from the same era, or earlier is so it can be proven to have been in existence long before any of us, and backed up by other materials relating to it.

 

 
 
Upvote 0
It's no different than you comparing the Bible to other religions.

Would you be so kind to explain why one religion can't be compared to another?

Because there is order in the way God does thing, He is not a God of chaos. When he does something it is for a reason, and there is always order in the way he does it.

What if another creator god isn't an orderly god? That one could create in whatever way he wanted.

Then why did you bother even asking me the question you did?

Because you keep displaying gross ignorance on the subject, and yet insist on rejecting ideas of those who do know what they're talking about.

As long as there was light no sun would be needed for plants to grow, I can grow a plant under artificial light without the sun, some plants need full shade to grow in, so they don't need sunlight they just need some form of light.

Did I say that? please point out where I said that God created things in some strange order that doesn't make any sense.

Right there. If he created plants and light before the sun there is no logical order.

If I had studied every other creation myth would I be asking for information on what they say, or where they come from?

I want to know how you are able to reject all other creation myths, except yours if you don't even know them. You seem to be suggesting that yours is the only one in the correct order, but since you don't know the others that doesn't make sense.

You still need to explain why your religious non-answer is any better that that of other religions. (third time.)

guess I should accept everything you say without question since you know so much more than I do, about all of it.

Noone expects you to belive eveything scientists say just because they say it. But we do expect you to know what you're talking about if you reject it. And you obviously don't.

the reason for asking for something from the same era, or earlier is so it can be proven to have been in existence long before any of us, and backed up by other materials relating to it.

Why does the creation myth have to be as old as creation itself? It is god telling us about it right? Why couldn't he have given it a lot later?

Are you claiming that genesis is older or as old as man?

Shai-Hulud
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
GraftMeIn:

I don´t want to be impolite, but say, do you just play stupid?

If you flip to the first pages in your Bible (really the first pages!) you will find a date when it was printed.

For example, my copy is from 1984.

Does that mean that the Bible was written in 1984?

Robert von Ranke-Graves did not write the greek mythology. He compiled old texts (like the ones from Pliny and others) and brought them into a consistent and readable form.

I´m sorry. I could not find anything about the oldest existing sources of these myths, but I know that they exist, and that they are quite old.

I will continue to search for sources, and post the result.


The oldest existing source for the Bible, on the other hand, are the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from about 150 b.c.

What does that tell us about the creation of the world? Nothing!

To use your quote: why should I believe something that was written 2150 years ago?

The Bible is not the only existing text that contains a story about the creation of the world, nor is it the oldest.


Genesis has been translated by a group of experts in language, there are original texts it has been translated from, even the dead sea scroll translations back up much of what is written in the Bible.

Yes, so what? Do you think v.Ranke-Graves did not speak old greek, or that his sources differ from his translations?

This still doesn't tell me when it was written, Isn't there one book like the bible? are there any ancient scrolls or texts, in existence like the ones the bible has to back it up? And why should I trust one persons translation about what it says?

There is not a single book. Does that make in invalid? There is also not a single book containing the NT. Does that make it invalid in your eyes?

And why should you trust someones translation of the Bible? Do you read it in hebrew/aramaic/greek?

It is irrelevant. A text that is 2000 years old can be as wrong as a text that is one year old. It can be translated, copied, quoted in whatever kind you like - that does not say anything about the validity of its contend.


So much for the sources.


What makes Genesis the same as the myths from other religions? I think there is a huge difference between one God that is eternal, and many Gods that were born.

What makes it different? There was some chaos, there was a God, there was some creation.

Genesis creation makes sense to you? Fine! Pelasgian creation made sense to a lot of old greeks.

And, hey, creation of the sun after the earth does NOT make sense to me. The problems with gravity alone would have been tremendous!

I also think there is a huge difference between one Gods and many Gods. Does that have any bearing about the truth of this story? No!

"My story is right because there is just one God, yours is wrong because there are many!"

"My story is right because the first human is called Adam, yours is wrong because he is called Pelasgos."

Is there a difference?
 
Upvote 0

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Originally posted by Shai-Hulud


Would you be so kind to explain why one religion can't be compared to another?

I didn't say they couldn't, I merely asked why comparing two religions was any different than comparing two rocks, to any other two things that contain no life.


What if another creator god isn't an orderly god? That one could create in whatever way he wanted.

Why is it so important to you that I need to know about all these other religions? I was talking about what's written in the Bible, not what other creation stories say. I was talking about something I have read, and you want me talk about things I haven't read.

this brings us back to the two rock theory again.


Because you keep displaying gross ignorance on the subject, and yet insist on rejecting ideas of those who do know what they're talking about.

You are the one rejecting anything from the Bible, saying that it needs to be compared to all the other religions.

and like I said before....

I'm sorry I didn't relize that you were an expert, and had read every creation story that exists, or that you read the entire Bible, and every book about science there is, and understand each one so completely. Therefore you must be much more knowledgable than I am about any of this. I guess I should accept everything you say without question since you know so much more than I do, about all of it.



Right there. If he created plants and light before the sun there is no logical order.

He created light before he created the plants is what I said, Do you think the only possible source of light comes from the sun?


I want to know how you are able to reject all other creation myths, except yours if you don't even know them. You seem to be suggesting that yours is the only one in the correct order, but since you don't know the others that doesn't make sense.

You still need to explain why your religious non-answer is any better that that of other religions. (third time.)

I was not talking about the other creation myths, I was talking about the Bible. So why do I need to be worried about these other myths?


Noone expects you to belive eveything scientists say just because they say it. But we do expect you to know what you're talking about if you reject it. And you obviously don't.


Have you actually read every single creation myth out there? Are you a scientist? Excuse me if I'm wrong but I think I metioned that it is possible for science, and the Bible to support each other.

The only part I questioned was how you get life from two things that contain no life at all.




Why does the creation myth have to be as old as creation itself? It is god telling us about it right? Why couldn't he have given it a lot later?

Are you claiming that genesis is older or as old as man?

Shai-Hulud

Actually Genesis is younger than man, doesn't take a scientist to figure that out either. It has been around much longer than most other written texts though.

As far as the greek mythology goes, it was debunked ages ago. and untill you can provide me with solid scientific proof that the Bible is wrong then I will continue to believe what it says. So far science tells me it's correct in the way it states the order of things were created.
 
Upvote 0

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
GraftMeIn said:

"The only part I questioned was how you get life from two things that contain no life at all."

Why not? I think someone already said that it depends how you define life. If you define life as a gift of God, then obviously you can't get life from two inanimate things without God. However, if you define life as the ability to self-replicate or as the ability to develop or reproduce, then those things are qualities, not substances, so you aren't comparing like with like. Lifeforms are made of the same substances as inanimate objects - chemically a dead person is pretty much equivalent to a live one. You can mix two colourless chemicals and end up with a blue one or a yellow one, and you've got colour from non-colour, even though you've still just got a third chemical.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
As far as the greek mythology goes, it was debunked ages ago. and untill you can provide me with solid scientific proof that the Bible is wrong then I will continue to believe what it says. So far science tells me it's correct in the way it states the order of things were created.

I don´t know where your knowledge of science comes from, but you ought to revise your sources. If they claim to be natural science, and yet tell you that the Genesis story is correct in the order things were created - they are frauds.

The creation of in fact the rest of the whole universe three days after the creation of the earth alone is something that contradicts everything we know about cosmology.

You can believe everything that you want - but please don´t claim it is backed up by scientific fact.
 
Upvote 0

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Freodin,
Are you a scientists? have you studied every field of science? Do you know all that there is to know about everything? Are you also a cosmologist? did you go to school and learn these things?

What makes you any better when you say the Bible comes from the Dead Sea scrolls? seems to me you don't know what you're talking about there. The dead sea scrolls weren't found untill long after the Bible had been written, They have been proven to be 1000 years older than the earliest known manuscripts that the Bible came from, and they contain most of the books of the old testement.


Just so you know, I have a degree in Horticulture, and have passed the Master Gardening course. I know what a plant needs to grow. It needs water, and a source of light, does it have to be sunlight? no it doesn't, plants are grown using artificial light all the time.

I never claimed to be a scientist. I asked questions about it, So far the scientific facts that you want to use to try and debunk the Bible with have no proof, they are only theories that still lack any type of scientific proof.

Now if science doesn't prove that plants need water and light in order to grow on the earth, please show me where it proves this. I'm talking about the plants that grow on the earth, not seaweed, and stuff that grows underwater.
 
Upvote 0

AtheistArchon

Be alert. We need more lerts.
Feb 6, 2002
1,723
1
Atlanta
✟3,507.00
Are you a scientists? have you studied every field of science? Do you know all that there is to know about everything?

- Well, at least someone is coming right out and admitting that anyone who wants to criticize the bible needs to be an expert in every field of science.  I've always been out of breath trying to learn enough biology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, archaeology, history, mathematics and statistics to satisfy a bible believer.  :)  And who says believers aren't skeptics!?

I never claimed to be a scientist. I asked questions about it, So far the scientific facts that you want to use to try and debunk the Bible with have no proof, they are only theories that still lack any type of scientific proof.

- The bible is soundly debunked in regards to science.  There is simply no debate: bats are not birds, slugs do not melt as they move, the earth is not the center of the universe.

- "only theories that still lack any type of scientific proof"... that tells me that you know nothing about science.  You're way ahead of yourself.

Now if science doesn't prove that plants need water and light in order to grow on the earth, please show me where it proves this.

- Huh?  If it doesn't... sorry, you lost me completely.

I'm talking about the plants that grow on the earth, not seaweed, and stuff that grows underwater.

- The question is: If God created plants and light before He created the sun, then where did the plants and light come from?  Starlight?  Insufficient.

- I'm not sure if you're trying to answer this question or not.  Are you?
 
Upvote 0

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
AthiestAchron,
I think in order for you to get full understanding of my statements you need to go back and read the preivious posts. I'm not talking about bats, and slugs. I'm talking about plants needing water and light (not actual sunlight, but just light) in order to grow. I'm told I don't have enough knowledge about science to claim that science would agree with the fact that light, and water would be needed in order for plants to grow on the earth.
 
Upvote 0
I didn't say they couldn't, I merely asked why comparing two religions was any different than comparing two rocks, to any other two things that contain no life.

You do understand the difference between rocks and reacting chemicals do you?

Why is it so important to you that I need to know about all these other religions?

You rejected all other creation myths for the biblical one. I'm assuming that you have a reason to do so. I want to know that reason.

this brings us back to the two rock theory again.

What does that have to do with anything? EXPLAIN THIS.

You are the one rejecting anything from the Bible

Because the answer presented there does not make sense. Because the answer there doesn't explain anything. Because it's obviously wrong. Because there is plenty of evidence to accept the other explainations. Now I want you to explain why you accept creationism. Why do you reject all other creation myths but not yours.

I'm sorry I didn't relize that you were an expert, and had read every creation story that exists, or that you read the entire Bible, and every book about science there is, and understand each one so completely. Therefore you must be much more knowledgable than I am about any of this. I guess I should accept everything you say without question since you know so much more than I do, about all of it.

You have no idea how a debate works do you?

He created light before he created the plants is what I said, Do you think the only possible source of light comes from the sun?

Why would one bother to create a second source of light? And how much sense does it make to create the planet before the sun it orbits. Of course you can explain that away with an omnipotent being, but it simply isn't logical or efficient.

I was not talking about the other creation myths, I was talking about the Bible. So why do I need to be worried about these other myths?

Because I want to know why you reject them, and not the bible. You must therefore have found something in the bible that isn't in any other creation myth, or have found errors in all other myths.

Are you a scientist? Excuse me if I'm wrong but I think I metioned that it is possible for science, and the Bible to support each other.

I'm an engineer, and amateur scientist. And yes it is possible to interpret the bible so that it doesn't confilict with science. But never the literal interpretation.

The only part I questioned was how you get life from two things that contain no life at all.

And that's been explained to you about three times. You have never offered any questions or remarks about that.

and untill you can provide me with solid scientific proof that the Bible is wrong then I will continue to believe what it says

Is that all? What do you want me to disprove? Just the literal interpretation of genesis, or a little of everything?

As far as the greek mythology goes, it was debunked ages ago.

No it wasn't. It was no more unlikely than your mythology. People just stopped believing in it.

So far science tells me it's correct in the way it states the order of things were created.

Quite probably for the fifth or sixth time. The sun has existed for about a billion years longer than life on this planet. You state exactly the opposite.

Shai-Hulud
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Originally posted by GraftMeIn
Freodin,
Are you a scientists? have you studied every field of science? Do you know all that there is to know about everything? Are you also a cosmologist? did you go to school and learn these things?

What makes you any better when you say the Bible comes from the Dead Sea scrolls? seems to me you don't know what you're talking about there. The dead sea scrolls weren't found untill long after the Bible had been written, They have been proven to be 1000 years older than the earliest known manuscripts that the Bible came from, and they contain most of the books of the old testement.


Just so you know, I have a degree in Horticulture, and have passed the Master Gardening course. I know what a plant needs to grow. It needs water, and a source of light, does it have to be sunlight? no it doesn't, plants are grown using artificial light all the time.

I never claimed to be a scientist. I asked questions about it, So far the scientific facts that you want to use to try and debunk the Bible with have no proof, they are only theories that still lack any type of scientific proof.

Now if science doesn't prove that plants need water and light in order to grow on the earth, please show me where it proves this. I'm talking about the plants that grow on the earth, not seaweed, and stuff that grows underwater.

One of the problems we seem to have in this discussion is that you keep attacking position that none of us ever build.

I´m not a scientist as a profession, but I have studied Mathematics and Phyiscs and I have some understanding of Chemistry and Astronomy.

I don´t have to know everything to know what I am talking about.

I did never - NEVER - claim that the Dead Sea scrolls were the origin of the Bible. I pointed out that they were the oldest existing source for the OT.

I did never claim that plants don´t need water or sunlight.

That is also not a point of discussion.

Scientific fact: all the light that the earth recieves comes from the sun.
Scientific fact: the light that the sun sends out is a product of the fusion process running there.
Scientific fact: the amount of energy that is send from the sun - of which just a tiny amount reaches the earth - cannot come from any other process than a nuclear one - and it requires a huge mass.
Scientific fact: there are no remains observable anywhere in the solar system that would give evidence for the existance of a source of light other than the sun.

So, if there was a source of light before the existance of the sun, it is not observable by natural science.

You may believe that it originated from God - but it is NOT backed by scientific fact.

Scientific fact: two masses like earth and sun orbit their common center of gravity.
Scientific fact: because the suns weight is much higher than that of the earth, this center of gravity is close to the center of the sun - close enough to say that earth roughly orbits the sun.
Scientific fact: the spontanous creation of a mass with the weight of the sun would cause tremendous forces to act upon the earth - causing massive disruptions.

It is highly unlikely that any plantlife on earth would have survived that.

You may believe that somehow God cause these effect not to happen, or that he protected the earth from the effects - but that is also NOT backed up by scientific fact.


So, the fact that water and light are mentioned in Genesis prior to creation of plants does not cause a conflict with science - the points mentioned above do.
 
Upvote 0

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Originally posted by Shai-Hulud


You do understand the difference between rocks and reacting chemicals do you?


Sure I understand the difference between rocks and reacting chemicals. I can toss two rocks into a toilet, they will clog it up. I can mix two reacting chemicals in a toilet and they will make it explode. Neither one is going to cause a form of life to emerge. unless there's an angry alligator in the sewer, that I just annoyed.



You rejected all other creation myths for the biblical one. I'm assuming that you have a reason to do so. I want to know that reason.

You do know the difference between the Bible and other religions don't you?


After reading the entire Bible, and reading about archeological finds that back up the contents of the Bible, and looking into what the other gods of other religions are, what they represent, and how they came into being recognized as gods. I can clearly see that the Bible is not just made up. Not to mention the fact that I have felt Gods touch, I can feel his spirit in me, and I have heard his voice, I see him working in my life, I know without a doubt he is real. I cannot and will not ever deny him.


What does that have to do with anything? EXPLAIN THIS.

It has to do with the fact that you want me to compare God with a bunch false Gods that are nothing more than evil spirits trying to take his place.




Because the answer presented there does not make sense. Because the answer there doesn't explain anything. Because it's obviously wrong. Because there is plenty of evidence to accept the other explainations. Now I want you to explain why you accept creationism. Why do you reject all other creation myths but not yours.

where is all this so called evidence to support other claims? and why are you asking me the same question twice? I already explained why.


You have no idea how a debate works do you?

debate isn't simply telling someone else they don't have a clue what they're talking about, and that's what you are telling me. without even considering what I have said, because you don't think I should use the bible as a source of what I'm saying.

If you don't think I should use the Bible as a source, then maybe you shouldn't use science as your source of backing up your claims.


Why would one bother to create a second source of light? And how much sense does it make to create the planet before the sun it orbits. Of course you can explain that away with an omnipotent being, but it simply isn't logical or efficient.

The Bible doesn't say that the earth sits in one spot and never moves. It could be possible that God created these set them in place, and then they began to revovle, and why doesn't it make sense to create the planet before the sun? Why does the sun need to come first?



Because I want to know why you reject them, and not the bible. You must therefore have found something in the bible that isn't in any other creation myth, or have found errors in all other myths.

I already answered this see above, this is the third time in the same post you asked me this question.


I'm an engineer, and amateur scientist. And yes it is possible to interpret the bible so that it doesn't confilict with science. But never the literal interpretation.

And is it so wrong for me to say that plants need light and water in order to grow on the earth? How is that in conflict with science?




And that's been explained to you about three times. You have never offered any questions or remarks about that.

Maybe that's because it makes no sense that no life plus no life equals life. and if science is all about evidence then where is the evidence for it?


Is that all? What do you want me to disprove? Just the literal interpretation of genesis, or a little of everything?

I never asked you to disprove anything, Your the one who seems to want to disprove it.



No it wasn't. It was no more unlikely than your mythology. People just stopped believing in it.

Quite probably for the fifth or sixth time. The sun has existed for about a billion years longer than life on this planet. You state exactly the opposite.

Shai-Hulud

How do you know for sure that's the age of the sun, and that our dating methods are correct? I don't even rely on the dates that have been derived from the Bible, I have no idea how long the first day lasted, or how long Adam could have been in the garden, or if he even aged while he was in the garden. The Bible doesn't give us clear and specific dates on that stuff.

It could be possible that the days have been growing shorter since the time the world was formed, The bible states that towards the end the days would be shortened, or else we would never survive. this itself could explain why the standards of time differ according to the Bible and science.

 
 
Upvote 0
Sure I understand the difference between rocks and reacting chemicals. I can toss two rocks into a toilet, they will clog it up. I can mix two reacting chemicals in a toilet and they will make it explode. Neither one is going to cause a form of life to emerge. unless there's an angry alligator in the sewer, that I just annoyed.

Oh please. At least try to understand. I do suggest you follow a basic chemistry course.

You do know the difference between the Bible and other religions don't you?

It's even worse than others? No significant differences as far as I can tell, but please, enlighten me.

and reading about archeological finds that back up the contents of the Bible

You mean some of the places mentioned in it actually exist? Troy was discovered based on the Ilias. Does that mean Zeus is real?

Not to mention the fact that I have felt Gods touch, I can feel his spirit in me, and I have heard his voice,

Frankly, there are places for people who hear voices.

I can clearly see that the Bible is not just made up

Would you care to give us a little actual evidence in stead of your opinion?

and why are you asking me the same question twice?

Because I've been asking it for several posts and you never answered.

debate isn't simply telling someone else they don't have a clue what they're talking about

Unfortunately sometimes they don't know what they're talking about. What would you say if I tried to debate the bible with you and I said that it was written by the current pope, that Jesus lived 50 years ago, and wanted total war on Russia?

If you don't think I should use the Bible as a source, then maybe you shouldn't use science as your source of backing up your claims.

You're not making a theological claim. You're making a scientific claim. That requiers scientific evidence, not just scripture. I hope you understand that.

How do you know for sure that's the age of the sun, and that our dating methods are correct?

Absolute 100% certaintly, proof, is impossible in science. I doubt that you're familiar with the philosophy of science, I'm not going to try to explain it here. Anyway, these dating methods have been verified with other dating methods, and have been found to be accurate. I suggest you read a little about the current theories on the formation of the solar system.

The Bible doesn't say that the earth sits in one spot and never moves. It could be possible that God created these set them in place, and then they began to revovle, and why doesn't it make sense to create the planet before the sun? Why does the sun need to come first?

I wasn't saying that the earth sits still. I'm saying that there are enourmous problems with creating the earth before the sun. Even ignoring the shockwaves produced by a sun appearing out of nothing, the earth would not have an orbit. It would simply fall into the sun. So god would have to give it a push. Don't you agree that it makes more sense to get the sun first, and then the earth. Then you don't have to bother about any of these problems.

I already answered this see above, this is the third time in the same post you asked me this question.

At least this question got through.

The bible states that towards the end the days would be shortened, or else we would never survive. this itself could explain why the standards of time differ according to the Bible and science.

Are you trying to propose creationism as a scientific alternative to the current cosmological/evolutionary/abiogenesis theories? If you are I'd expect something more that just 'explaining away the evidence'.

Shai-Hulud
 
Upvote 0

GraftMeIn

The Masters Gardener
May 15, 2002
3,954
5
Visit site
✟6,403.00
Originally posted by Freodin


One of the problems we seem to have in this discussion is that you keep attacking position that none of us ever build.


I'm not the one attacking anything here, I'm simply questioning things. It is you who are attacking what the Bible says, because you think it and science can't agree. I'm simply trying to point out a few things that it can agree on, and you attack me with saying that I don't know enough about science to make any claims about the Bible and science being able to support each other.



I´m not a scientist as a profession, but I have studied Mathematics and Phyiscs and I have some understanding of Chemistry and Astronomy.

I don´t have to know everything to know what I am talking about.

Then why do you expect me to?


I did never claim that plants don´t need water or sunlight.

That is also not a point of discussion.


and why isn't it the point? I keep getting told that I don't know enough to about science to make any claims, and the only claim I had tried to make so far was that science would agree that plants need water and light to grow.



Scientific fact: all the light that the earth recieves comes from the sun.
Scientific fact: the light that the sun sends out is a product of the fusion process running there.
Scientific fact: the amount of energy that is send from the sun - of which just a tiny amount reaches the earth - cannot come from any other process than a nuclear one - and it requires a huge mass.
Scientific fact: there are no remains observable anywhere in the solar system that would give evidence for the existance of a source of light other than the sun.

So, if there was a source of light before the existance of the sun, it is not observable by natural science.

You may believe that it originated from God - but it is NOT backed by scientific fact.


hmmmmmm! do you remember how electricity was discovered? could that not possibly have something to do with how there could be light before the sun came into existence?



Scientific fact: two masses like earth and sun orbit their common center of gravity.


does the sun contain gravity?


Scientific fact: because the suns weight is much higher than that of the earth, this center of gravity is close to the center of the sun - close enough to say that earth roughly orbits the sun.


How did they weigh the sun, and the earth?


Scientific fact: the spontanous creation of a mass with the weight of the sun would cause tremendous forces to act upon the earth - causing massive disruptions.


what evidence do we have of the weight of the sun?



You may believe that somehow God cause these effect not to happen, or that he protected the earth from the effects - but that is also NOT backed up by scientific fact.

And how much physical evidence is there to back up scientific fact? If you expect science to back up the bible, before you even consider thinking about what it says, then it's only fair that there's also physical evidence to back up science.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums